[Special Feature: Sovereign and Public Opinion] Takanori Sueki: The Goals of Sovereign Education in High Schools

2021/10/05

The second House of Representatives election since the start of the 18-year-old voting age is approaching. Two House of Councillors elections have already been held, and there is a sense that the 18-year-old voting age has become established in high schools. However, compared to the initial period in 2016 when the first national election after the introduction took place and various classroom practices and related books were actively published, the boom has already passed, and many issues remain unresolved. While practicing as a high school civics teacher, I also write papers as a researcher of Japanese political history. In this article, I would like to discuss the goals of sovereign education in high schools from that perspective.

I must state in advance that I have already presented my thoughts and arguments regarding the 18-year-old voting age (around 2016) in several articles and academic conferences, intending to "sow the seeds." However, the reality is that far from forming a majority, there are currently no signs of them "sprouting." Therefore, the considerations and arguments in this article may likely feel eccentric or strange to some. Nevertheless, I accepted the request to write this because I felt that if I could not get as many people as possible to first recognize the current issues, the time for reform might never come. This time, I would like to approach it with the attitude of "watering the seeds I have sown and waiting patiently for them to sprout."

First, I would like to confirm the premises. Sovereign education in high schools should not be about what is necessary at the age of 18, but rather about what high school students, standing at the starting point as sovereigns, will need when they fully participate in politics. From that premise, I believe that current sovereign education and theories of political participation are too focused on voting behavior in the most recent elections and the resulting voter turnout. Of course, I am not denying that elections are important. To use an analogy, it is like teaching beginners in mountain climbing only how to behave and what to watch out for at the summit, without keeping the process of getting there in view. As a result, when they approach 18, they are suddenly asked by adults in schools and the media, "Will you go vote?" or "Which candidate (party) will you vote for?" If they hesitate, they are criticized by experts who say things like, "Is their awareness low because they can't choose despite having so many options?" or "No, we should analyze the reasons for their silence."

If we continue this, the path to cultivating sovereigns with the high level of awareness that adults expect will be long, and we will likely not reach the intended goal. If high schools also try to send students to only the immediate election empty-handed, saying "Voting is so easy," they might try it once, but they will stop going after that. Certainly, voting itself is a very simple act of writing the name of a person or a political party on a piece of paper with a pencil and putting it in a box. However, the reason they struggle is likely because they are forced to make a choice despite having scarce materials for judgment. If there is a problem, it is that the 18-year-old voting age began without improving that situation.

So, what should be done? What I consider important is for teachers to think about the processes (activities, knowledge) necessary before finally voting in an election, to know what characteristics Japanese elections have compared to other countries, and to handle these in a form possible within school education. Below, I would like to state my thoughts.

First, knowing what local and national legislators do in local assemblies and the Diet after they are elected should be a prerequisite for political participation. Since proceedings are generally open to the public, anyone (even those under 18 or foreign nationals) can observe them. Two years ago, I led students in my "Graduation Research" class (high school seniors) to observe the Kanagawa Prefectural Assembly. At that time, the issue of personal information leakage from the prefecture's hard disks was being discussed. By actually going to the assembly hall, we were able to see scenes not usually visible, such as a computer placed at each legislator's seat and the reaction of the governor when a legislator pursuing responsibility for the leakage issue turned a stern face toward him. Currently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many assemblies have restrictions on attendance, making it difficult to conduct this as a school activity. However, since the Diet and many local assemblies broadcast deliberations online, one can watch the deliberations from class or home. Arguments between the government and legislators over important bills can only be seen in edited forms on TV news, but live broadcasts have the advantage of allowing one to see everything as raw information. Even just watching for a certain amount of time in class elicits reactions from students like, "It's different from the impression I got from the news." They say this is because they can see scenes where ministers and bureaucrats being questioned about issues hesitate, clearly dodge questions, or repeat the same answer over and over.

As a researcher, I became interested in the history of assembly observation and recently summarized and published my research results in a paper *1. To introduce a part of it, the observation system has existed since the beginning of the Imperial Diet in the Meiji era, and before the war, many people, including women who were not granted the right to vote, flocked to it. After the war, physical attendance declined due to the start of radio and TV broadcasts, but in February 2020, internet broadcasts jumped from an average of 10,000 to 20,000 hits per day to a record high of 58,000 hits. This is thought to be due to the deliberation of the amendment to the Public Prosecutors Office Act, which faced strong public opposition while more people were working from home during the pandemic. In other words, Japanese voters show interest in politics when they have time and when a high-profile issue arises, and observation functions to visualize that interest.

Second, I believe it is necessary to address not only the right to vote but also the existence of the right to stand for election at the high school level. Although the age for this has not yet been lowered, youth organizations have already proposed lowering it to 20 or older for both houses. Certainly, from the perspective of an 18-year-old, it would be difficult to feel that they are choosing their own representatives when the youngest candidate is seven years older in the House of Representatives and a full cycle older in the House of Councillors; in actual elections, even those in their 30s are a tiny minority. However, the existence of the right to stand for election is important to convey that sovereigns are not just beings who vote, but beings who can also run for office themselves and throw themselves into the world of politics. With that perspective, one can notice that the current system imposes harshly strict constraints on new entrants.

I handle the harmful effects of the current electoral system in the elective subject "Introduction to Politics" for high school seniors and the compulsory subject "Contemporary Society" for freshmen. At that time, I introduce how the high cost of election deposits, the shortness of the election period, and the strictness of campaign regulations are unprecedented in the world and act as barriers to new entry (detailed later), effectively restricting the right to stand for election. If the age for the right to stand for election were lowered to 20 or older in the future, students could realize the problems of the system by thinking about whether young people could actually be elected unless they are from political dynasties.

Third, it is necessary to present to students what means of political participation exist and have them think about what they themselves might be able to do. This is not to incite students to engage in political activities, but to let them know that elections are not the only way sovereigns can express their will, and that stating opinions to politicians chosen in elections and expressing opposition to strange movements is a normal process of democracy.

The 1960s and 70s were a passionate time for politics, and people back then belonged to organizations and expressed their will through them. However, even though we have now entered an era of unorganized individuals, the system remains as it was designed in the past, creating a layer of people whose opinions are not reflected and who have grown cold toward politics. Many adults have little experience with political participation other than voting. Therefore, the current situation is that it is difficult for students even to know about means of participation unless they are intentionally presented in school. Looking at international surveys, Japan lacks experience in political participation compared to other developed countries, and there are no signs of change in that trend. To cite newspaper reports as an example, experience in participating in or activities for political parties is 1.4%, and experience in participating in demonstrations is 5.8% *2. In other words, the current situation where most voters have no experience in political participation other than voting in elections, and voter turnout has dropped to around 50%, is quite critical. However, just trying to get them to go to the immediate election because of that must be called superficial.

This is because Japanese elections are "don'ts" elections unlike any others in the world. The election deposit costs 3 million yen per person (House of Representatives single-seat constituency). Although it is returned if a certain number of votes are obtained, if it is confiscated in the first election, would one be able to run next time? However, since many legislators have their deposits paid by the political parties that endorse them, discussions on lowering or abolishing them are sluggish. Next, the election period is short at 12 days (House of Representatives). It started at 30 days after the war but has been reduced in stages. With this, new candidates will likely end up just repeatedly calling out their names and putting up posters to increase name recognition. Regarding campaign regulations, door-to-door visits to homes and offices are prohibited, there are strict limits on the distribution of documents, and pre-election campaigning and holding joint public speaking events are also forbidden.

For example, many people have likely encountered scenes of staff distributing flyers during a candidate's street public speaking, but did you know that those flyers are limited to a maximum of 70,000? Therefore, election camps receive 70,000 small stickers called certification seals from the election administration committee and distribute them only after manually sticking them on. Also, the ban on door-to-door visits has faced numerous unconstitutionality lawsuits, but the courts have maintained their judgment of constitutionality. Prevention of bribery is always cited as the main reason. In countries other than Japan, door-to-door visits are permitted, but no major problems have occurred. This is because, under universal suffrage, there are more cases of requesting big shots who can move organizational votes to consolidate support rather than bribing one vote at a time through door-to-door visits, as happened recently in Japan; the judgment of constitutionality for this reason is strange. Rather, in today's Japan, the fact that various candidates and parties are missing opportunities to interact directly and two-way with voters other than their supporters is inviting distrust in political parties, resulting in an increase in unaffiliated voters and causing a situation where half of the voters abstain. In an era cold toward politics, rules that promote direct contact are needed so that the voices of the people are reflected.

Now, how far back can the roots of such strict regulations be traced? Actually, the electoral system that began in the Meiji era was basically free, following the West. Strict regulations were introduced during the revision of the election law in 1925 (Taisho 14), known for male universal suffrage. The purpose at the time was to prevent proletarian parties from using their organizational power to reach out to voters and expand their influence through the introduction of universal suffrage. The content included not only the ban on door-to-door visits and the introduction of election deposits, but initially even "individual interviews" and "third-party campaigning" were prohibited. Individual interviews refer to the act of a candidate calling for a vote from an acquaintance they happen to meet on the street, and third-party campaigning refers to anyone other than registered election camp staff conducting election activities. Both were legalized after the war, but for about 20 years, those who could be involved in elections were limited, and candidates/camps and voters were thoroughly prevented from making contact.

Because such strict regulations have continued for nearly 100 years, the sense that elections are something where you only vote and normally don't get involved has remained with citizens, and it has now become so established that no one questions that this is just how Japanese elections are. However, this kind of election is unique to Japan, and if we are to lament the low voter turnout and the large number of hereditary legislators, we should change the mechanism that makes it extremely disadvantageous for new candidates and new parties. The reason current high school students struggle with whom to vote for is not because their awareness is low, but because information necessary for choosing a voting destination is scarce compared to other countries, and adults who have grown accustomed to this have not changed the mechanism until now. More to the point, since they have shortened the election period and raised the amount of election deposits, it can even be said that they have worsened the situation.

Is current sovereign education failing to look at the flaws in the current system and instead becoming education to turn students into "voters"? A sovereign should be a being who discusses and decides the problems of their own society themselves. Choosing representatives of the people (elections) without awareness or interest in social issues being aroused, and without information or discussion (process) regarding the issues, makes it easy to just leave everything to them once they are chosen, and tends to create a pattern where people get angry only when a legislator who commits a scandal appears, saying "I trusted them (left it to them) but was betrayed." Instead of "trusting and leaving it to them," it is necessary to return to the starting point of democracy: expressing opinions to each other on the problems of our society, going through discussion, and deciding things in the political arena in a way that incorporates those views. Naturally, such a decision-making process inherently takes time, and decisions that do not follow those steps must be criticized. In Japan, too, deliberation was explored for a time, but in the end, "politics that can decide" without taking time continues to be pursued. I want to think carefully about what rapid decisions in a situation where sovereigns are not participating in politics will bring. In that respect, education that tries to just get people to go to elections for the time being—to put it harshly—I fear may become an excuse for decisions without participation.

Fortunately, in recent school education, active learning is recommended in various subjects, group work is actively conducted, and students are used to it. In fact, the skill in building communication from a first meeting is incomparable to the past, and most adults would likely be surprised. I want to develop this further so that serious themes such as politics and social issues are talked about as a matter of course. Furthermore, in democratic politics, it is necessary for adults who have finished school education to continue discussions as sovereigns, and how to connect students to members of society can be considered a future challenge. In that respect, the realization of the 18-year-old voting age can be said to have raised the question, which had never been asked before, of how one should discuss social issues and participate in politics after becoming a member of society. This is because, as long as we are asking high school students for active political participation, adults have an obligation to respond to the natural question, "Then what about adults?" While it cannot be said that this is widely shared at present, I believe that teachers, at least, must fulfill that obligation.